Z wrote:In my opinion, the SVC-350 is is better than the VP-330 since you can tweak the sound with the 11 band "equalizer" and you can also disable the ensemble effect.

Is there a particular reason why you want the VP-330?

If you didn't know already, Behringer has been teasing us with photos of products they're working on and one of them happens to be a VP-330 clone.

I just really like the breathy sound of it. Plus Vangelis used it extensively and I love the "Blade Runner" soundtrack.

What really turned me onto the VP-330 is the fact that when I was looking in the liner notes of "Face Value," the Phil Collins LP, I noticed that he used the robotic voices i.e. the vocoder on "In The Air Tonight" in the background -- adds a bit of mystery to the track.

Yes, I did see that Behringer was making a VP-330 clone, they seem to be doing a better effort than Roland these days.

But yeah, do you by any chance know of any other alternatives? Thanks.

You're probably right too, the SVC-350 is very likely better than the VP-330... you can get them rather cheap (well, cheap in synth terms that is) and they aren't too hard to find. Just wish they had a synth section like the VP-330.

Rumbler101 wrote:
You're probably right too, the SVC-350 is very likely better than the VP-330... you can get them rather cheap (well, cheap in synth terms that is) and they aren't too hard to find. Just wish they had a synth section like the VP-330.

The VP-330 does not have a synth section. You're thinking of the RS-505. The VP-330 has basic strings and choir. Pretty much the same string sound as on all of the Roland RS string ensemble keyboards.

I've owned both the VP-330 and SVC-350 (and plenty of hardware and software vocoders). IMO, the answer is that nothing sounds as good as a real-deal analog vocoder. There ARE other vocoders that sound as good as (or possibly better) than the vintage Rolands, but nothing cheaper (vintage Synton, Sennheiser, and EMS vocoders for example, but they're crazy $$$). I've never heard a digital emulation that really captures the "bark" of the real thing, or the cool sound of the bands overlapping as a vowel changes.

All three sections are excellent, and as was pointed out above, Vangelis is the main champion of this instrument. He used the strings on the opening to Bladerunner and on Chariots of Fire, while some or all sections feature heavily on albums such as See You Later, Private Collection, Mask and Soil Festivities among others. Indeed we go on about the importance of the CS80 to Vangelis but the VP330 was arguably as important to his music of that era.

The key point to note is that, although it uses divide down technology, it is, from a chordal point of view, 48 note polyphonic - and Vangelis used this so well because its the constant flow of well voiced chords and chord progressions in his music (from a classical voice leading viewpoint) that makes it sound so good. The strings, just used for banal chords - sound - quite banal!

So the VP03 cannot emulate the VP330 as a string synthesizer because its limited to 6 voices. it is a big point to take on board if you're after a rich lush string machine.

Similarly, Behringers clone appears to be just 3 octaves! There may be MIDI on it- but again - the VP330 is a performance instrument, so if controlling the Behringer one from a MIDI controller it won't be the same (because even the original VP330 does require constant contact, and work and practice, to make good music on it). It does appear however (as much as it pains me to say it -not because I have an actual VP330 (that I'll never sell) - but because I loath Behringer's technology-theft ideology ) that the Behringer upcoming clone may have a quite convincing 'sound' of a VP330.

The Xils V+ plugin version is actually _very_ good at the strings and human sound - I'd suggest checking that out.

I have a SVC350. I agree the closest you could probably get is a SVC plus a RS -202 which according to the A-Z of Analogue Synths is the closest to the VP strings.

However I'm not convinced that you really need a string machine - a simple mono or poly would work (mono if you are doing mono lines). I've used a Virus, an Obie Matrix 1000 - the point is according to the Roland manual you want the very simplest carrier if you want maximum intelligibility - say a saw tooth, filter full up. Add a sub oscillator for more oomph.

chamomileshark wrote:
However I'm not convinced that you really need a string machine - a simple mono or poly would work (mono if you are doing mono lines). I've used a Virus, an Obie Matrix 1000 - the point is according to the Roland manual you want the very simplest carrier if you want maximum intelligibility - say a saw tooth, filter full up. Add a sub oscillator for more oomph.

Correct. You would not want to use the output from a string machine as the carrier signal on a vocoder since there is so much motion in the sound from the triple or quad BBD ensemble effect. Unfiltered saw waves usually work best. I'm sure y'all have seen my video:
[youtube][/youtube]

Question for you - I've been able to get nice spoken stuff from the SVC 350 - also some staccato sung stuff. But if I try doing sustained notes to create simple ooh or aaah choirs it's not smooth. Have you tried that? Perhaps my voice is too shaky and I need to use a mic preamp and a compressor before the vocoder?

chamomileshark wrote:
Question for you - I've been able to get nice spoken stuff from the SVC 350 - also some staccato sung stuff. But if I try doing sustained notes to create simple ooh or aaah choirs it's not smooth. Have you tried that? Perhaps my voice is too shaky and I need to use a mic preamp and a compressor before the vocoder?

Yeah, I can't sustain a note very long with my voice. I wonder how Suzanne Ciani did it on Seven Waves and Velocity of Love.